How about deleting some Touhou?

We've discussed this before in forum #16990 and it was pretty much a consensus that it wouldn't work.

Hmm, funny how I forgot that thread being it was only month ago, and I argued against my current stance there. Perhaps it's worth re-examining and working out the details, however? I prefer the idea of the feature to the witch hunt thread idea this thread was originally meant to be.

That being said, as noted in that thread, and like I just mentioned, there would be issues that would certainly need ironed out.

Reading a bit more thoroughly, my biggest issue with the feature at that time was the bookkeeping that would need written into the system to prevent edit wars. I am still of the opinion that if it involves adding tables or expensive DB operations it won't be worth it.

But if it's something simple as restricting flags for review to one's own posts and contributor posts that have not yet been through the mod queue (which would be as simple as adding a single binary field to the post), I think the benefits might outweigh the costs. I don't see any good reason why something should ever need to go through the queue twice anyway. That would likely just lead to bad blood.

The suggestion in that thread is slightly different in that it asked for contributors to be able to send stuff through the mod queue voluntarily. In this case it would be a middle road between letting something (as uploaded by a Contributor, and thus bypassing the queue) be and flagging it for deletion.

Shinjidude said:
I don't see any good reason why something should ever need to go through the queue twice anyway.

I agree with this. I also think it's a good idea overall but I think at this point, talking about it won't get us anywhere. We'll just have to wait for albert to come here and give us his view on the idea and how feasible it is etc.

Log said:
We've discussed this before in forum #16990 and it was pretty much a consensus that it wouldn't work.

We still need a means of dealing with contributor uploads which by definition weren't ever approved.

An easy solution to the concerns voiced before would be to record whether a post was manually approved or automatically approved. In the latter case, it can be submitted for approval; otherwise, it can't. Prevents edit wars at the cost of one bit per post (if even that).

LaC said:
...

That's exactly what I was alluding to above, one new boolean field per post.

It would also allow for the request in the other thread to be fulfilled, since there is no real reason a contributor shouldn't be allowed to flag their own contributions for review to see if it passes muster.

LaC said:
BTW, K-on is full of crap uploads too.

Not really, don't know why people are targeting K-on when it's fairly new and has been getting really good art by plenty of good artist. I haven't even seen bad K-on hentai being uploaded yet.
It's the older really popular series around here that have had a LOT OF SHIT posted that needs cleaning up:
Neon Genesis Evangelion - lots of quality art and really shitty hentai
The Haruhi series
Touhou once again
Final Fantasy series
Pokemon has some mediocre hentai
Just to name the top ones but don't get all offended if you disagree.

There's been plenty of mediocre to poor K-on stuff coming in as well, as with anything that gets posted due to popularity. At least there is plenty that I pass on, I don't know if it eventually gets through or not.

Apparently, adding stuff to the "Why was this approved?" pool is anonymous.

Excellent feature, thank god for whoever did that!

EDIT: Maybe not completely anonymous, since I can see that a user has added posts in the history. Maybe its because he's privileged level?

it wont for semi old posts, since you can look at the tags info and figure when it was last updated if they see its been added to a pool.

Good point, I dont even know if that's fixable.

It shouldn't be fixed as it's a measure against pool vandalism too.

What's the deal with making this process anonymous? Bad post quality is a legitimate complaint, nothing to be ashamed of. I think it'd be better to make a revision appeal thread, to see the reasons. I don't like it when stuff is silently deleted as a background process *shrug*

as of now, you can create a new account and add posts to the pool and it would be anonymous since there appears to be no changes in the history...easily fixable. Although having a pool like that is no different from posting questionable images on a thread for everyone to hate.

The reason I say this is to prevent people from removing posts easily.

Not a very good pool if you can easily remove your own images from it.

What would fix this is if the mods treated it like a "flagged for deletion" and dealt with them right away.

Granola said:
What would fix this is if the mods treated it like a "flagged for deletion" and dealt with them right away.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thats funny. Really.

So an Unapprove link (accessible to Contributor and above) that sends a post back to the mod queue. A post can be sent back only once (twice?) before this action becomes unavailable.

I would think flagging could be removed if this system were implemented.

It's only of real use to contributor uploads. Afterall, if someone approved a post once, what's stopping them from approving it again?

This would also make the mod queue even more tedious than it already is.

albert said:
This would also make the mod queue even more tedious than it already is.

I'm sure some eager soul would flag every bad image ever posted here on the very first day such a feature became available. There'd have to be some limits.

well it looks like one person was greatly offended by the addition of questionable quality images that were added to the pool today.

albert said:
So an Unapprove link (accessible to Contributor and above) that sends a post back to the mod queue.

Accessible to janitor and above, I'd say. For contributors, I'd just have a "queue for approval" checkbox in the upload form.

It's only of real use to contributor uploads.

Yes.